Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

3 votes is a pretty close margin on which to risk the full faith and credit of the United States (sorry, said 2, but presumably Cheney would have broken the tie in Bush's favor).

To continue with Steny Hoyer's analogy, then, the Democrats wouldn't be shooting someone's child in the head, they were just shooting the gun near the child's head and were totally, super sure that it would miss, which is totally responsible behavior. The target was like a whole foot to the right of the child's head, so it was cool, brah.

But again, I have little doubt that the consternation here about the Democrats (and a few Republicans) ploy in which they risked the full faith and credit of the United States to score a political point was thick and heated, I just can't find it because of a lack of good searchable archives. But I'm a trusting type of guy, so I have no problem giving Sammy and the others my full faith and credit in their intellectual consistency that has to do with the merits of a position, not the letter next to a politician's name. If a stathead can't have full faith and credit in other statheads, where would we be today?

Isn't the issue with this argument that the D caucus in the Senate could easily have filibustered the vote but chose not to?

In other words, they actually had the ability to hold the vote hostage but chose not to. That makes things a bit different. As other people have stated, there was no real intent to negotiate or bargain for concessions in exchange for a vote on the debt ceiling. It was just silly posturing for people back home.

Or in other words:

What DJS is performing here is generally known as a "reach."

But Szymborski is totally not a Republican and is completely above partisan politics.

So, right now, what we have, is normal grandstanding, not hostage-taking.

The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that we were downgraded by S&P. The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that the uncertainty had a tangible effect on the market.

The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that we were downgraded by S&P. The Dems in 2006 never took us close enough to the brink that the uncertainty had a tangible effect on the market.

The Dems in 2006 had secret future knowledge that it wouldn't? They simply lucked out that one of their bullets didn't kill a hostage. Why do you defend hostage takers?

But yeah, the S&P was all the Republicans fault. Just look at the S&P's *actual justification*.

We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United
States of America to 'AA+' from 'AAA' and affirmed the 'A-1+' short-term
rating.

We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from
CreditWatch negative.

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan
that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of
what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's
medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness,
stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political
institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic
challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a
negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the
gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us
pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be
able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal
consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics any
time soon.

The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the
long-term rating to 'AA' within the next two years if we see that less
reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new
fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government
debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.

OK, they don't *say* Republicans, but with Republicans in Congress on 4/18/11 and President McCain being in the 3rd year of his first term as president, clearly it's all the Republicans fault.

I know it can be tricky without the (D) and the (R) clearly put in front of names so you know just how to think! Maybe there should be a law.

It wasn't secret future knowledge. It was simple whip counting of their caucus before it went to the floor. You do know what whip counting is, right? You do realize that party leadership knows how every member is going to vote on any given bill (in both Houses) prior to it ever going to the floor, right?

But yeah, the S&P was all the Republicans fault. Just look at the S&P's *actual justification*.

I have no dog in the "who to blame for S&P's downgrade" fight. I'll only point out that S&P are to blame for their downgrade, and they took that action due to their own fiscal priorities as a money making venture, and that I have no idea why anyone with a functional frontal cortex is giving two shits of a damn about what S&P thinks given their ratings of CDO's and pay-for-play behavior during the housing bubble.

I know it can be tricky without the (D) and the (R) clearly put in front of names so you know just how to think! Maybe there should be a law.

i'd just like to point out what you're saying here is not that your ideological compatriots are doing the right thing, what you're saying is just that because people you disagree with did it before, you have every right to do it now.

I doubt it. While you can grow your own if easily if you're willing to accept crappy product, you need to be pretty serious about things to get top-quality (precise management of light cycles with total darkness during the off-stages, properly identifying and discarding the males before fertilization, proper curing, etc.). With that effort (and expense, since good grow lights are high-wattage), it will only be cost-effective for some sort of distribution. And just like some people don't drink Budweiser, some people don't use crappy weed; there's a market for high-quality stuff that won't just go away.

good weed is not that hard to produce. 1k watt bulbs on all the time til budding 12 on off and your good.

edited to add you need a good strain to start with, ditch weed gets you ditch weed no matter what you do. But a seed or clone of a quality strain will turn out pretty good

The following was spoken by a United States senator in 2006 during the debate to increase the debt limit:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

i'd just like to point out what you're saying here is not that your ideological compatriots are doing the right thing, what you're saying is just that because people you disagree with did it before, you have every right to do it now.

In other words "It's OK when the guys I like do it, but when the guys I don't do, I'll compare political disagreements to kidnappings and child murder."

Regressives sure don't like it when their tactics are used against them, do they?

I love how Obama being called a "socialist" is the worst thing since the Holocaust, because it isn't technically true from a pure definition standpoint (and it isn't), but then calling a threat not to raise the debt limit as "hostage-taking" which isn't remotely the definition is OK.

I'm not a fan of big government, but I would still get a thrill if everyone who used the term "hostage-taker" to describe a political disagreement over a government's legal borrowing authority had to write a letter to the families of the killed Algerian families, describing who the death of their loved on was just like having to argue with people making political points.

I'm not a fan of big government, but I would still get a thrill if everyone who used the term "hostage-taker" to describe a political disagreement over a government's legal borrowing authority had to write a letter to the families of the killed Algerian families, describing who the death of their loved on was just like having to argue with people making political points.

So your point of disagreement is basically pedantic, over the use of the metaphor "hostage taking?"

Threatening to not raise the debt ceiling is a valid scare tactic. So is labeling it as "hostage taking".
I mean, only a bizarre fetishist or dupe would actually listen to what a politician says, rather than watch what they DO.

NOT actually raising the debt ceiling, on the other hand would be grounds for censure. Well, unless it's part of a coordinated default policy.

but I would still get a thrill if everyone who used the term "hostage-taker" to describe a political disagreement over a government's legal borrowing authority had to write a letter to the families of the killed Algerian families, describing who the death of their loved on was just like having to argue with people making political points.

Oh Dan, it's doesn't become you to play "shocked on the behalf of the real victims" card. Or do you seriously get the vapors when politicians or their supporters exaggerate?

Dumb question: can you use this thread for other OT stuff besides politics or will that lower your BTF cred?

I think standard etiquette would be "yes, as long as it's not the NFL/NHL/NBA/Soccer/College Football/College Basketball." If it's an OT post about a topic that it's own dedicated OT thread, go there. Otherwise, drop the tangent here. Gods above and below know we could use a diversion from next week's episode of "what will Joe say about gun control next?"

they were threatening to default if obama didn't give in to their demand. Thats the definition of hostage taking.

Nonsense. If that was the definition of hostage-taking, you would have called the police.

By your definition, the grocery store just held my food hostage until I paid $100. And the electric company is holding my future electricity hostage for $180! OH NOES! CALL THE FBI!

You may think that choosing not to increase the government's borrowing authority is a bad idea. I do too -- I feel the budgetary process is the more practical place to have these arguments -- but there's no inherent right to have legislation you desire be enacted in Congress.

Fact is, progressives love to seize on hyperbole, declare it the worst thing in the world, demand public penance from the speaker, demand disavowals from everyone remotely associated with the speaker, in a whole, theatrical auto-da-fé. And then they turn around and use the exact same hyperbole non-stop.

Oh Dan, it's doesn't become you to play "shocked on the behalf of the real victims" card. Or do you seriously get the vapors when politicians or their supporters exaggerate?

Oh, I'm not actually shocked on the behalf of the real victims (I clearly don't have any moral right to). But I love hypocrisy and the circle-jerk crowd here essentially baked me a bourbon pecan pie with freshly whipped vanilla cream on top. I love watching stuffed shirts who have invested so much time into making sure they know they're smarter people and better people than the hoi polloi demonstrate just as much intellectual coherence as some right-wing ######### blaming Obama for evolution in schools on facebook.

Calling Democrats against the Patriot Act unpatriotic and unAmerican was wrong then and of the same type and degree as calling Republicans that wish to make long-term spending reform in return for the approval of increase governmental borrowing limit hostage-takers now. If you want to engage in hyperbole about others, that's fine, but let's spare the crocodile tears when those others use hyperbole about you.

"I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting,” he said. “Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this — it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming.”

Dan, assuming you're not in one of you "block Sam" phases, you're inching of the Rationality res at this point.

It's his stupid definition of hostage-taking, not mine.

This is the definition of hostage-taking:

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, whoever, whether inside or outside the United States, seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure, or to continue to detain another person in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the person detained, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life and, if the death of any person results, shall be punished by death or life imprisonment.

He said what the Republicans did "fit the definition" of hostage-taking. I assume he called the police to notify them that there was an ongoing crime.

I assume the response is "oh, it's hyperbole" which it is. But the progressoscists here constantly disavow the use of hyperbole and colorful language by anyone but them.

It's also Mitch McConnell's and the political right's definition as well. Do we need to link to the plethora of comments from Red State or other Tea Party friendly sites calling on the GOP House to "shoot the hostage?" I understand where you might argue "this is a stupid metaphor and everyone's an idiot for using it," but it's a bit of a long stretch to assign the usage to one side of the aisle. For better or worse, "hostage taking" is the currently vogue metaphor for the attempt by the House caucus to hold the debt ceiling authorization back in hopes of beneficial changes to other policies that they prefer.

He said what the Republicans did "fit the definition" of hostage-taking. I assume he called the police to notify them that there was an ongoing crime.

You're approaching a David-esque level of pedantry on the definition of a simple political metaphor.

n.
1. A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party.
2. One that serves as security against an implied threat: superpowers held hostage to each other by their nuclear arsenals.
3. One that is manipulated by the demands of another: "National policies cannot be made hostage to another country" (Alan D. Romberg).
[Middle English, from Old French, probably from host, guest, host; see host1.]

SOFIA, Bulgaria (AP) — Bulgarian police detained a man after he pointed a gas pistol at an ethnic Turkish party leader as he was delivering a speech at a party caucus in the capital Saturday. No shots were fired.

The video from the Saturday event in Sofia shows the man climbing the podium where Ahmed Dogan, the leader of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, was speaking, and pointing the gun to his face.

Dogan struck the man before he could pull the trigger, while other delegates wrestled the assailant to the ground. TV footage showed several people punching, kicking and stomping on the man when he was on the ground.

One that is manipulated by the demands of another: "National policies cannot be made hostage to another country"

Ah, so arguing policies is manipulation by demands, eh?

I plan to call you all hostage-takers at every opportunity.

By your argument, you also fit the definition of having committed murder as I find your defense of one-way hyperbole to be "outrageous and blameworthy" (merriam-webster, 2b). Would you not think it hyperbole if I called you a murderer in every post for now on?

Sorry, but the use of "hostage-takers" is obvious hyperbole of the same type that the people using it throw a fit about when they're the target.

Calling Democrats against the Patriot Act unpatriotic and unAmerican was wrong then and of the same type and degree as calling Republicans that wish to make long-term spending reform in return for the approval of increase governmental borrowing limit hostage-takers now.

You do realize you're comparing a metaphorical claim to literal ones, yeah? And, as others have pointed out, the Teaper crowd has embraced, rather than disavowed, the "hostage-taking" metaphor. The claim that Obama's a socialist does not belong in the same conversation.

Should I ever hold back something you have a reasonable right to assume I would not hold back, in lieu of your giving in to my demands for something else, feel free. Please note however that I do not believe that you have a particularly reasonable right to assume I will give you "agreement on all of your positions and arguments" during an academic debate on the internet, especially not to the extent that I believe the Congress of the United States should be assumed to not hold back the full faith and credit of the United States government over ideological aims.

If I hold my opinion about a debate topic "hostage" in this thread, the global economy doesn't collapse.

Dan, assuming you're not in one of you "block Sam" phases, you're inching of the Rationality res at this point.

Truth time. I've never actually blocked you. People like Treder or Shipman or dp who ape your rhetoric, but don't have your wit or joie de vivre, I will happily go to my grave never having interacted with them for the rest of my life. But as frustrating as you are generally, you're too damn good a writer to not read. If I ran the Washington Post, I'd fire Greg Sargent and give you his job.

If I hold my opinion about a debate topic "hostage" in this thread, the global economy doesn't collapse.

So then, Obama's holding the global economy hostage. The Republicans have expressed a desire to come to a middle ground in a debate over legislation. Obama has not. Obama's the hostage-taker.

I've only skimmed this hyperbole sub-thread, but is the person who uses "government with guns" and "at gunpoint" in describing tax collection now concerned about one side's using "hostage taking" (as if both sides haven't been using that metaphor for years) in the debate on the debt limit? I wonder what his take is on David's favorite bit of rhetoric, i.e. when the government taxes him it's "stealing" his "life"?

And as others have noted, there's a bit of a difference between a metaphor used to describe an action and a direct questioning of someone's patriotism. The "socialist" and "collectivist" labels may be clownish and ahistorical, but at least they're not personal attacks on the same level as "anti-American" or "traitor".

I've only skimmed this hyperbole sub-thread, but is the person who uses "government with guns" and "at gunpoint" in describing tax collection now concerned about one side's using "hostage taking" (as if both sides haven't been using that metaphor for years) in the debate on the debt limit? I wonder what his take is on David's favorite bit of rhetoric, i.e. when the government taxes him it's "stealing" his "life"?

And as others have noted, there's a bit difference between a metaphor used to describe an action and a direct questioning of someone's patriotism. The "socialist" and "collectivist" labels may be clownish and ahistorical, but at least they're not personal attacks on the same level as "anti-American" or "traitor".

If I'm reading the signs right, the new talking point in the guns-for-penises crowd is that we need to have gun safety and live fire proficiency training in public schools, as the gun equivalent to driver's ed.

No, you're governed by a party you did not vote for. You consent to that possibility by being part of a democracy.

Consent to that possibility as opposed to what? Actively revolting? I don't see "accepting an unpleasant situation because resistance is impractical" as consent.

I'm not saying democracy is precisely the same as a dictatorship, but I didn't consent to a number of government policies. I tolerate them, and that's not really very different than having to tolerate unpleasant policies in a relatively benevolent dictatorship. The main difference, as I see it, is that if I can convince enough people of something in a democracy, I have a reasonable chance of changing policy (although, to be fair, if I could do the same in a dictatorship, the movement might represent a credible enough threat of overthrow to change policy too).

I definitely agree with the idea that a democracy is less prone to abuse of power than a dictatorship because the power isn't as individualized, but I don't think it is a system of consent. If 50.1% of the population were to believe that the correct policy for the country would be the systematic rounding up and execution of <insert hated minority group here>, it would most certainly not be something I consented to.

If I'm reading the signs right, the new talking point in the guns-for-penises crowd is that we need to have gun safety and live fire proficiency training in public schools, as the gun equivalent to driver's ed.

Actually, if you're going to have guns in the public sphere, I think this is a pretty good idea. It's a dangerous technology if you're not knowledgeable about the dangers. I'd also support teaching basic fire safety and basic swimming techniques as part of public education.

Actually, if you're going to have guns in the public sphere, I think this is a pretty good idea. It's a dangerous technology if you're not knowledgeable about the dangers. I'd also support teaching basic fire safety and basic swimming techniques as part of public education.

I think those kinds of classes fit a lot better as part of obtaining a gun license. That's how they do it in other countries and it works well.

Glad they weren't killed, but as long as they weren't I have to admit I love stories like this. "Gun Appreciation Day" has got to be one of the creepiest concepts of all time, even if it does lend itself to some delicious lampooning.

Glad they weren't killed, but as long as they weren't I have to admit I love stories like this. "Gun Appreciation Day" has got to be one of the creepiest concepts of all time, even if it does lend itself to some delicious lampooning.

Eh, its not anything weirder than some of other big convention shows out there for various interests. Although, its pretty damn clear that a Darwin award should be given to the organizers of this event if only because they apparently need to specify that any and all guns SHOULD BE UNLOADED.

Glad they weren't killed, but as long as they weren't I have to admit I love stories like this. "Gun Appreciation Day" has got to be one of the creepiest concepts of all time, even if it does lend itself to some delicious lampooning.

Eh, its not anything weirder than some of other big convention shows out there for various interests. Although, its pretty damn clear that a Darwin award should be given to the organizers of this event if only because they apparently need to specify that any and all guns SHOULD BE UNLOADED.

Hmmmm, in some states those gun show organizers might have a lawsuit on their hands. I guess it's okay to carry a loaded gun into a church or a school or a restaurant, but at a gun show, heaven forbid.

The guy taking the shotgun (loaded) out of its case and pelleting three bystanders is just made of win.

And I suppose with "Gun Appreciation Day" under their belts, it was inevitable that the gun nuts would think up a series of rallies called "Guns Across America". They should get Mel Gibson to sing "We Are The World" or something.

DALLAS — On one side of Young Street, volunteers from First Presbyterian Church of Dallas attempted to persuade gun owners to turn in their firearms. They would receive $50 to $200 — from donors — and know that their guns would be destroyed.

Across the downtown street, members of the Right Group — formed to compete with the church event — set up in a rented vacant lot to urge visitors to resell their firearms rather than destroy them. They had signs reading "We pay more" and "Gun rescue."

very random but I am pissed at those who equate swartz death as to something noble, he is a kid who got way in over his head considering his actions and the punishment he was facing was legit, just because he took the ##### way out does not make him some magical person. It just makes him some scared kid who did not understand what the #### he was doing. It is not the fault of MIT or anyone else, it is own damn problem. And one he failed to deal with

also the person i am arguing with seems to think its ok to steal the works from mit with out repercussions. needless to say he does not agree with me when I say Bradley Manning deserves every bit of hell he has gone through

If Swartz stole from JSTOR, then so did I and every other college kid who used the archive and then shared an article with somebody else. Hint, downloading something when you have access is not 'hacking'.

But downloading and publishing when you do not have access is a big issue. I dont care who you are or what school it is but to hack and publish the work done by others with out their consent is illegal ( and I may be one of the most liberal people here) This type of activity cannot stand. It is not society's fault he didnt have the balls to face what he did. The fact he didn't is not an indictment on society but an indictment on the student himself.

But downloading and publishing when you do not have access is a big issue. I dont care who you are or what school it is but to hack and publish the work done by others with out their consent is illegal ( and I may be one of the most liberal people here) This type of activity cannot stand. It is not society's fault he didnt have the balls to face what he did. The fact he didn't is not an indictment on society but an indictment on the student himself.

He didn't actually publish the work done by others. Also, JSTOR didn't want criminal charges brought, they just wanted the content secured, which it was.

All that leaves is Swartz being very clever about using an internet network he wasn't authorized to use. He wasn't using it to send military secrets to Al-Qaeda or arranging to have sex with 12-year-olds. Charge him with a misdemeanor and let him do a couple hundred hours of community service. There was no justification for the federal government treating the Swartz case as if he was Aldrich Ames.

very random but I am pissed at those who equate swartz death as to something noble, he is a kid who got way in over his head considering his actions and the punishment he was facing was legit, just because he took the ##### way out does not make him some magical person. It just makes him some scared kid who did not understand what the #### he was doing. It is not the fault of MIT or anyone else, it is own damn problem. And one he failed to deal with

I'm not going to justify suicide. I'm also not going to say that Aaron Swartz did nothing wrong, because that isn't true. He was an activist, and his intentions were based on a belief in free exchange of information (a cause that I believe is very noble), but he did break the law.

That said, the punishment he was facing was not legitimate (at least in a moral sense). His crimes carried a potential sentence of up to 35 years, and up to $1M in fines. But don't take my word for it; here's a quote from Rep. Zoe Lofgren:

The government was able to bring such disproportionate charges against Aaron because of the broad scope of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the wire fraud statute. It looks like the government used the vague wording of those laws to claim that violating an online service’s user agreement or terms of service is a violation of the CFAA and the wire fraud statute.

Using the law in this way could criminalize many everyday activities and allow for outlandishly severe penalties.

When our laws need to be modified, Congress has a responsibility to act. A simple way to correct this dangerous legal interpretation is to change the CFAA and the wire fraud statutes to exclude terms of service violations. I will introduce a bill that does exactly that.

It's not reasonable to say that the government killed Aaron Swartz, a young man that suffered from depression and chose to end his own life. It is reasonable to say that the government acted poorly, and that the threat of an outrageous punishment contributed to the emotional state that led to Swartz's decision.

Actually, if you're going to have guns in the public sphere, I think this is a pretty good idea. It's a dangerous technology if you're not knowledgeable about the dangers. I'd also support teaching basic fire safety and basic swimming techniques as part of public education.

Let me know when we have a rational dialogue about guns in this country. The country has gone over the bend on the objective plusses and minuses of guns.

Legal or not, I think a gun that's kept in the house for personal protection makes the household less safe. Guns in households tend to be used in ill-thought-out suicides and family arguments far more often than defending the household from intruders. Same goes for concealed carry. Legal or not, if I'm in the same place as Joe Schmo who's carrying, I'm probably less safe.

But we can't talk about such issues, can we? Could we have talked about DWI if a significant portion of the population either felt that alcohol was some sort of magic potion that cured all ills, or sided with those that did believe it?

But we can't talk about such issues, can we? Could we have talked about DWI if a significant portion of the population either felt that alcohol was some sort of magic potion that cured all ills, or sided with those that did believe it?

There is an astonishing amount of people, who think they drive better after a few drinks.

Do we know everything here? How far along were they in proceeding to trial? Many defendants are overcharged, then there's negotiation down from there. This guy wasn't a person without resources. Was he really going to go to jail at all? In the fume and froth to always blame the government, from popular media representations, we maybe should assume a more becoming modesty. The prosecutor says they would have probably recommended six months. Also, wikileaks has confirmed Swartz was a source. A lot of this we'll never know definitively from a legal standpoint, since the dead aren't prosecuted.

Many defendants are overcharged, then there's negotiation down from there. This guy wasn't a person without resources. Was he really going to go to jail at all?

I think you've already identified a major problem with our criminal justice system. Defendants shouldn't be overcharged as a negotiation tactic; they should be charged properly. Our system encourages plea bargains through excessive charges and maximum sentencing. Because of the threat of an outrageous penalty, overbroad laws are often not tested and remain on the books. The system doesn't really work.

As for Swartz's jail time, it depends how much of an example the government wanted to make of him, and of course, on the judge's discretion in sentencing. Shortly before his death, if wikipedia and one of Swartz's attorneys is to be believed, the only way to avoid trial was to plead guilty to all 13 charges and to spend six months in jail. If that was the government's best offer, odds are pretty low than a guilty verdict would have resulted in less jail time.

In the fume and froth to always blame the government, from popular media representations, we maybe should assume a more becoming modesty. The prosecutor says they would have probably recommended six months.

That's what the prosecutor is saying now that Aaron Swartz is dead, and there's a bipartisan concern about prosecutorial overreach that includes a potential investigation by Congress, and a petition to remove her from office. Six months ago, she was saying things like "stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar" and "if convicted of these charges, Swartz faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a fine of up to $1 million." After Swartz killed himself, the tone of her public statements changed a bit: "this office sought an appropriate sentence that matched the alleged conduct – a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting."

I don't really blame Ortiz too much, though. (It does appear that a six-month plea bargain was on the table, so it's not like she was making monstrous demands.) While discretion in charging certainly is part of her job, it's not really her place to re-write the law. The CFAA is really the culprit here.

Also, wikileaks has confirmed Swartz was a source. A lot of this we'll never know definitively from a legal standpoint, since the dead aren't prosecuted.

Why does it matter if Swartz was a source for wikileaks? He was very heavily involved in the open information movement; I'd imagine that practically every major contributor to internet freedom was a potential wikileaks source.

It would have been good for the people to see this issue tried, to bring public attention to the issue, rather than disposed of via plea bargain silently. Certainly, it's getting a lot of attention now, but at what cost?

But downloading and publishing when you do not have access is a big issue. I dont care who you are or what school it is but to hack and publish the work done by others with out their consent is illegal ( and I may be one of the most liberal people here) This type of activity cannot stand. It is not society's fault he didnt have the balls to face what he did. The fact he didn't is not an indictment on society but an indictment on the student himself.

He was working on a fellowship at Harvard. So he had access to the archive. Have you ever been on JSTOR? When I was using it, they never put limits on what or how many articles I could download, or how many times I could it. Its pretty clear that JSTOR never considered that somebody would just try to download the entire archive. But somebody did, and they didn't need to 'hack' it. Really, its JSTOR's own shoddy infrastructure that made it possible in the first place.

Do we know everything here? How far along were they in proceeding to trial? Many defendants are overcharged, then there's negotiation down from there. This guy wasn't a person without resources. Was he really going to go to jail at all? In the fume and froth to always blame the government, from popular media representations, we maybe should assume a more becoming modesty. The prosecutor says they would have probably recommended six months. Also, wikileaks has confirmed Swartz was a source. A lot of this we'll never know definitively from a legal standpoint, since the dead aren't prosecuted.

Let me rephrase. Morty's post is an example of why I'm having more trouble finding common ground to vote for Democrats in the last 5 years or so, a sad command government leanings among a percentage of leftists, as seen in such things as articles characterizing the First Amendment as free speech fetishism, suddenly finding drone strikes a-ok, and stuff like this. The idea that it's OK for the government to overcharge a defendant because he has resources and that we should be concerned about being more modest about government prosecutions really leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No, the government didn't hang Swartz with piano wire, but the way the entire case was run and the arguments of the people defending the government have a disturbing tinge of Volksgerichtshof running through it.

Retardo and I have a great deal of mutual dislike, but at least his (I believe erroneous) concept of rights is concerned about individuals.

He was working on a fellowship at Harvard. So he had access to the archive. Have you ever been on JSTOR? When I was using it, they never put limits on what or how many articles I could download, or how many times I could it. Its pretty clear that JSTOR never considered that somebody would just try to download the entire archive. But somebody did, and they didn't need to 'hack' it. Really, its JSTOR's own shoddy infrastructure that made it possible in the first place.

From what I've read, Swarz actually snuck around to different libraries specifically because he had had limitations put on his downloading activities, after he began. There's a ton of prosecutorial overreach and there's a lot of criticisms to be levied against prosecutors and DA offices run amok in our criminal "justice" system, but let's not pretend that Swarz didn't realize what he was doing was frowned upon and illegal, to the extent that he took extensive action in the world (going to libraries at other campuses than Harvard) to avoid systemic rules.

The other thing that I find really weird here is that Swarz identified himself as an internet activist and he behaved as such. He quite clearly put himself in the upper tier of a group of activists who intentionally commit acts of civil disobedience to call attention to what they believe to be unjust laws. The assumed result of civil disobedience is arrest, detention and jail time. MLK didn't protest in Birmingham and then expect to avoid time in a Birmingham jail. That's what I find really disconnecting here. It's like the guy was out playing the role of anarchist internet activist going against the man, but then completely freaked his #### when it turned out that the man was actually powerful and intent on maintaining the status quo of his power and authority in the world. It seems Swarz was approaching his "activism" as a bit of trust fund dillitente role playing rather than real action in the world, and the world came up to brutally burst his bubble.

It's part of the unavoidable essence of adversarial proceedings that neither party will tend to negotiate with itself. Both sides will take extreme positions at the outset. Indeed, it's done here in argument with practically every post.

I would like to refrain from making too many assumptions about guilt and reciprocal responsibility since matters in the Swartz case were some distance from a conclusion. We simply don't know, and now will never know, what would have eventuated. But, we do know how things are with legal proceedings. We know prosecutors overcharge--because they can and because it is effective. And we know they negotiate down. There's not much reason to believe Swartz was going to get anything like 30 years. You might as well believe everyone who is caught smoking a joint for the first time is given ten years hard time.

People's ideology infects almost everything they say on this thread. They need to step back and get a grip; give the life and death Armageddon mindset a rest sometimes. I know we all think we have the answers to all the problems, and don't need to consider untoward possibilities, but, really, it can get awfully tiresome.

. The assumed result of civil disobedience is arrest, detention and jail time. MLK didn't protest in Birmingham and then expect to avoid time in a Birmingham jail. That's what I find really disconnecting here.

It's not the fact that he was charged that I find disturbing -- he appears to have been guilty of something -- it's the zealousness and overcharging of the prosecution in this case that's the problem. Even racist Alabama, upon finding King guilty, limited the punishment to $500 or a year in jail, not up to a million dollars or decades in the slammer if convicted. If Jim Crow justice actually looks merciful by comparison, something's gone horribly wrong.

It's not the fact that he was charged that I find disturbing -- he appears to have been guilty of something -- it's the zealousness and overcharging of the prosecution in this case that's the problem. Even racist Alabama, upon finding King guilty, limited the punishment to $500 or a year in jail, not up to a million dollars or decades in the slammer if convicted. If Jim Crow justice actually looks merciful by comparison, something's gone horribly wrong.

Swartz's attorney actually said that right before Swartz's suicide, he'd negotiated a plea bargain that would have resulted in no jail time at all, but that MIT had vetoed it.

(CNN) -- The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was called a communist, an outside agitator and a drum major for righteousness.
But now a growing number of people are calling King something else: A conservative icon.
As the nation celebrates King's national holiday Monday, a new battle has erupted over his legacy. Some conservatives are saying it's time for them to reclaim the legacy of King, whose message of self-help, patriotism and a colorblind America, they say, was "fundamentally conservative."
But those who marched with King and studied his work say that notion is absurd. The political class that once opposed King, they argue, is now trying to distort his message.

Yes, because Democrats didn't engage in political brinksmanship as well at all. Nope, not our young handsome heroes!

You seem to have me confused with someone else, Dan. Rather than rise to the bait (although come on, how could you not find this guy handsome), I'll just say I think you're misleading yourself if you think that (a) the 2006 vote on the debt ceiling bore any resemblance to the 2011-and-after votes on the debt ceiling, or that (b) the Democrats engaged in similar brinksmanship to the Republicans in either case.

Threatening not to permit the increase the debt ceiling and thus run the risk of default and tanking the economy if you don't get your way, even when your own party leader's debt reduction plan (Paul Ryan's Path to Prosperity) didn't balance the budget for ~20 years, and that was with (IMO) optimistic revenue assumptions...that is not a good faith negotiation.

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. . . . It is a sign that the U.S. government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government's reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that 'the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."

It's like the guy was out playing the role of anarchist internet activist going against the man, but then completely freaked his #### when it turned out that the man was actually powerful and intent on maintaining the status quo of his power and authority in the world. It seems Swarz was approaching his "activism" as a bit of trust fund dillitente role playing rather than real action in the world, and the world came up to brutally burst his bubble.

That's an unfair characterization, based on what I've read. I don't think that just by being a non-violent activist you should be automatically held to the MLK gold standard. His suicide should not cast a shadow over all the real good he did as an activist, and should not call into question the sincerity or seriousness of his prior actions.

#1792: "Hey guys, I posted this once already, and no one cared, so I posted again asking why no one cared and still no one responded, so now I'm reposting it, in hopes that someone will care this time."

The Dems in 2006 had secret future knowledge that it wouldn't? They simply lucked out that one of their bullets didn't kill a hostage. Why do you defend hostage takers?

You call it luck, I call it a reasonable assessment of risk that everyone else understood and made at the time.

First of all, Dan's completely forgetting the 'Hastert Rule' -- previous debt ceiling hikes had, indeed, always passed under split Congress/Pres scenarios, but with the minority (President's) party supplying almost all the votes.

The Hastert Rule mucked that up -- because it meant Boehner wouldn't bring a bill to floor that could pass with majority Dem support.

The Dems don't have a 'Hastert rule' -- Pelosi brought a number of bills to the floor during her speakership that got less than majority Dem support...

In fact - if you want a difference between this GOP caucus and similar Dem caucuses in reverse circumstances, look at the 2008 bailout...

You had a GOP President more reviled than any President on his way out the door since probably Hoover... You had a Democrat running against "him" as a proxy, even as John McCain was actually on the ballot.

Suddenly, Lehman collapses, Bush's treasury secretary is asking for blank checks or the world dies, etc... Did the Democrats extract anything from the GOP President? Universal health care? An immediate end to Iraq? Expansion of Medicare?

Nope - Pelosi got Bush the votes... Dems didn't like it, they got beat up for it, but this monstrosity that everyone seemed to be saying was absolutely necessary got passed with Democratic votes for a proposal from a Republican President everyone hated.

It's part of the unavoidable essence of adversarial proceedings that neither party will tend to negotiate with itself. Both sides will take extreme positions at the outset. Indeed, it's done here in argument with practically every post.

That's a filthy lie, but no more than I'd expect from a Communist and a sodomite.